5 comments about "And I Was There": Pearl Harbor And Midway -- Breaking the Secrets (Bluejacket Books).

1. First and major portion of book covering Pearl Harbor is excellent. However, after Layton's death, the book was continued from his notes and descriptions of campaigns after Pearl Harbor suffer in quality by comparison.



2. Before you jump on some revisionist books about Pearl Harbor, like Stinnet's Day of Deceipt, you should get it from the horses mouth! Layton, et al, tell a little known side of the war in the pacific. His opinions of some famous naval personalities like Stark and R.K. Turner will really have you thinking about how war is run when powerful, ambitious officers are running the show. It's a shame that lives had to be wasted while the U.S. got its act together to finally win the war in the pacific, but Layton's tale will give you a new perspective and supports much of what was previously written, like Prang's "At Dawn We Slept", about the debacle of Pearl Harbor and the genius that followed at Midway. Buy it!



3. Edwin T. Layton served as Fleet Intelligence Officer for Admirals Kimmel and Nimitz. He, along with the other members of station Hypo, were assigned the task of breaking into Japan's secret codes, especially their JN-25 cypher. Through exhausting efforts by its members, they were finaly able to penetrate enough of the JN-25 code to make reasonable assumptions as to what the Japanese navy was planning. "Magic" was the term used for the intercept and decryption of these secret codes.

   However, no decoding was actually done at Pearl Harbor, because there was no "Purple" decoding machine there. All intercepts had to be sent to Washinton for decryption, and Hawaii relied on Washington for their information. Layton's thesis is that Pearl Harbor was denied vital intelligence which, if issued in a timely fashion, could have alerted Pearl Harbor to the impending attack which occurred on December 7, 1941. Although I agree with some of his thesis, I also believe that the Pearl Harbor commanders made terrible mistakes of their own which also contributed to the unpreparedness of Pearl Harbor.

   One message that Washington failed to send Pearl Harbor which I believe, along with Layton, could have alerted the fleet to the attack was the so-called "bomb plot" message. In a nutshell, this message divided Pearl Harbor into several sections and placed ships in each section; almost like laying an invisible grid over the harbor. Of all the messages that Pearl Harbor failed to receive, this was probably the most important.

   However, with this stated, I also believe that the commanders made grievous errors of their own. On November 27, 1941, a "war warning" message was sent to both commanders at Pearl Harbor. Both seemed perplexed and unsure of the course of action to be taken. Why was this? Both Admiral Kimmel and General Short were high ranking members of the military, yet they both dragged their feet when they received this message. Short simply ordered defense against sabotage instead of ordering an all-out alert, while Kimmel failed to order any further long-range patrols, plus he didn't order the battle force to sea. They seemed incapable of making any independent judgement of their own. Instead, they needed to be told directly what to do. These omissions are unforgivable.

   Inter-service rivalry also played a role in the failure. As pointed out by Layton, there was very little inter-service cooperation or sharing of messages, so most of the time, one usually didn't know what the other was doing. Further, during the Midway operation, a rivalry betwen station Hypo and the Washington-based intelligence unit nearly cost us the battle, but fortunately, Layton and commander Joe Rochefort were able to convince Nimitz that Hypo, not Washington, was correct.

   I thought this was a good book, but I disagree with Layton's assertion that Kimmel and Short were scapegoats and had no clue what was happening. Granted, there was some intelligence that was definitely denied to them, but they should have been able to interpret events on ther own, namely the war warning message. This book is a good counter-argument to other works, such as "At Dawn We Slept". The information about the battle of Midway is especially interesting, plus the story of the codebreaking activities was well-done.




4. And I was there.
   This is a great book by one who was there, Adm Layton. He was Adm Kimmels intelligence officer at Pearl Harbor.
   He shows how the incompetence of the Navy in Washington led to the surprise attack at Pearl, by the Navy, specifically adm Stark and Kelly Turner, not giving Pearl the vital information they had about Jap intentions, but refused to give Pearl. The Navy also had 2 intelligence groups fighting for the information, and control, evaluating, and dissemination of the information. This too sabotaged the intelligence efforts, and does to this day.
   Gen Marshall is also responsible for the debacle. He was reprimanded, but Roosevelt set aside the Congressional verdict on him.
   Kimmel was judged not guilty of any wrongdoing by the Navy, but found derelict by Congress, a tragic miscarriage of justice, due to lies under testimony by Stark, and Turner.

   The Redmon brothers are faulted too for ousting the most brilliant Navy intelligence officer, Rochefort, who correctly guessed the time and location of the Midway battle.

   Another tragic aftermath of Pearl, was the loss of Wake Island. Kimmel had a carrier task force sailing to resupply and relieve the garrision that was under attack by the Japs. This would have surprised the Japs and could have sunk many Jap ships, saved Wake Island, and kept open the supply lines to the Phillipines. Unfortunaely, Kimmel was relieved, and Adm Pye replaced him Pye lost his nerve and cancelled the mission.

   MacArthur is noted, as being in charge of the Phillipines, and being under orders to attack Formosa with his B17's when Pearl was attacked. He had a 9 hour warning after Pearl had been attacked, and had been told to attack. It was not until years after this book was published that the records of why Mac did nothing in the Phillipines were found. He was paid $650,000 by Pres Quezon of the Phillipines to do nothing, as he wanted to be neutral. MacArthur lost the Phillipines, a far more important strategic outpost than Pearl, as well as half the B17's we had, and 1/5 of our fighters, on the ground, just as what happened at Pearl, only 9 hours later, after he had multiple phone calls from Washington to attack the Japs.

   The battle of Guadalcanal and other Pacific battles is also gone into in some detail
   It was Nimitz, not Mac Arthur that devised the island hopping idea.
   A great book by a hero who was there.




5. As the Fleet Intellegence Officer of Admirals Kimmel and Nimitz Edwin Layton was in a unique position to see and to understand what was going on regarding the battles at Pearl Harbor and Midway. This welcome reprint to the 1985 book has to be considered one of the more definitive books of the couple of hundred on the subjects.
   
   Layton was a language officer stationed in Japan before the war to learn Japanese. He followed Japan and the Japanese developments closely. He was at Pearl before the attack and remained there throughout the war. He was on the Missouri at the Japanese surrender.
   
   There are a series of revisionist history books that propose such things as Roosevelt and Churchill conspiring to let the Japanese attack at Pears. Yes there is evidence that we had some intelligence pointing to the Japanese attack. But you have to look carefully at how much material there was, how many messages had been intercepted, how few had been translated and you come up with the basic understanding that it just hadn't been put together. A lot like the situation with 9/11, Monday morning quarterbacking is much easier than being in the midst of the game.
   
   Layton was there, he knew what Kimmel and Short knew, indeed he had briefed them with the material on hand. Could they have been better prepared, yes, Layton says, if Admiral Richmond K. Turner had forwarded the information. But like any inter-departmental power struggle, Turner held the information to himself.
   
   I was also surprised by the relatively little animosity shown towards the Redman brothers who bounced Rochefort and Safford out. Indeed Layton points out that the do it themselves style of Rochefort and Safford probably wouldn't have done a very good job of managing the Navy Radio Intelligence activities that grew to almost 8,500 people by the end of the war.
   
   All in all, a must read for anyone interested in what happened at Pearl and Midway.

3 comments about I Rode With Jeb Stuart: The Life And Campaigns Of Major General J. E. B. Stuart.

1. More than McClellan's memoir, this is an early Stuart biography, and later biographies such as Davies' and Thomas' rely heavily upon it. McClellan became Stuart's AG in May '63, but his account starts with Stuart's youth.

   This is a vital account in showing exactly what Stuart's cavalry did during the war: scouting, raiding, screening movements, fighting rearguard actions, gathering information, etc. One thing I didn't know was that Stuart's horse artillery, often under the command of the general himself and sometimes with regular batteries added, would take up a flank position during infantry battles and fire into the Federal ranks. The perpetual, obviously exhausting, activity of the cavalry also becomes obvious.

   McClellan was present for the Gettysburg campaign, and his account is invaluable for this somewhat controversial issue. His writing becomes more personal at this point, and he recounts several anecdotes of interest. He continues his detailed recounting of ANV cavalry activity until Stuart's death; McClellan was present at the deathbed and ends his book there. This should be required reading for anyone interested in the cavalry.




2. It is often more interesting to read what those who have been there have to say than what we think they said. Thus is the case with this book. It may not have every fact correct, but it is what the author McClellen remembered. As with "Co. Aych" and "All For the Union," their perception of the smaller picture of the War than the overall history that is fascinating.



3. I feel this is a great book for anyone intrested in learning more about this great person. He was not just a General but a caring, warm and compassionate person.

5 comments about Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History.

1. If you like politically correct revisionism, then this is for you. I don't mind at all reading well reasoned essays, but when the author concludes that nothing about the historic portrayal of Robert E. Lee is accurate, that's a bit much. According to the book, Lee was not particularly honest or competent.
   When those closest to him throughout his U.S. army career, those who served closely with him during four years of war,and even his military adversaries (including President Licoln) almost universally indicated a high regard for the man, certainly he must have gotten something right. The Army of Northern Virginia held together during one of the coldest winters in the 19th century (1864-65) shivering in the trenches with little clothing or food because thousands still believed in Lee enough to continue to fight. That was certainly well before the myth of the Lost Cause was developed. I guess that those who knew him best were just too stupid to see the great "truths" this book uncovers.
   
   The fact that Lee's soldiers went home after an incredibly bitter war and that America did not turn into Northern Ireland is a tribute to Lee. The fact that Lee quicky applied for a pardon and tried to set an example to reduce sectional hatred and devoted his remaining years to educating the next generation means the poor guy could not be all bad.
   
   But you sure wouldn't know it from reading Lee Considered. I suggest that you considering buying something else.



2. Yep, it is, in my opinion, very bad (I can hardly use the word in connection with it) "history." Knowing that I love to read Civil War history, a relative gave me this book for Christmas, 2007; I read it in a couple of days. Geez. Invalid criteria, misreading of facts and invalid analysis are, in my opinion, the hallmarks of this book. Valuing my bookshelf space, I did the right thing: I wrote my 'Thank You' note, then pitched it.
   
   Its a good thing that trees are a renewable resource.



3. Save your money, Charter assignation is the lawyers trade mark and from Alan Nolan you see his distain for the south and all southern writers; objectivity is not in his vocabulary or writing this book.
   Nolan writes in typical lawyer fashion, he does not let truth or facts get in the way of a good story.
   I am disappointed with the blatant bias of the book by someone who is attempting to write about a general in the confederate army with any degree of fairness. A law degree makes not a soldier or writer.
   Nolan makes many contradictory statements, both military and nonmilitary, which appear to be from not having an original thought and brings into question his expertise in military tactics and his ability to write objectivity as a military historian. His use of tertiary sources is least desirable way to do research and writing; but to say the people who he has scavenged the work from do not know the real Robert E. Lee is the height of conceit. In this book Nolan seems to be trying to prove historians wrong and portray Lee as some sort of war monger, which of course if far from the truth.
   Douglas S. Freeman, Nobel Prize, a Lee historian of the highest caliber, is turning over in his grave, at the attacks on his writing. Freeman's father, served honorably for the war of independence, was a great source of information for Douglas; would be greatly insulted by this book.
   His writing is excerpts form other writers books and he leaves many gaps when quoting for these writers, which leaves me to believe he is selectively taking information out of context for the purpose of demeaning the main charter.
   One would be better served to read other books on the war for southern independence before reading this book.



4. this book shows the flaws of robert E lee. the author disproves many of the myth surrounding Lee about not supporting slavery and being a flawless general -eventhough he was a good general. overall, it is a good read for anyone who wants to learn about Robert E Lee.



5. If a book has substantial references and documentation to specifically document controversial opinions and positions of the author, then it may make a worthwhile read. In this tome, however, Nolan provides little to no rational support for his opinions, making his efforts..., well,....trash. At least the National Inquirer gets sued if it creates defamatory material, and publishes it. Poor Marse Lee isn't with us to give Nolan the same thrashing he would receive were Nolan not too infirm himself and the subject of his scorn alive.
   
   Sadly, I can only hope that McPherson and Gallagher, who thought this book more than a cheap novel, have managed to maintain a higher degree of scholarship in their own works than does Nolan. Honestly, my problem with the book is not that it takes a negative view of Lee, otherwise, I wouldn't have bought it. My disappointment lies in the unmitigated lack of reasonable support in the record to be found in a single negative statement.
   
   Well, at least the pages of my book have found some redeeming usefulness, as what is left of the book sits next to my toilet. Damn expensive toilet paper, though.

4 comments about Leadership & Strategy: Lessons From Alexander The Great.

1. 
   This book distills the essence of the world`s greatest leader.Comparing Alexander with other outstanding leaders and modern theories , the author
   explains the most effective ways of leadership and the strategies valuable to modern leaders.



2. The author vividly describes the story of this amazing leader's life and battles and masterfully intertwines it with useful tips for today's bussiness life. Enjoyable to read from page 1 till the end. Excellent.



3. This book will teach you lessons of leadership by looking back in history to one of the greatest leaders of all: Alexander the Great. You'll enjoy learning timeless leadership skills through history tales from thousands of years ago, and comparative analyses of some contemporary leaders.. Great read!



4. This book describes in detail the enduring leadership lessons from the ruler of the ancient world and analyzes what made him so successful.
   
   You will eventually understand why so many leaders in history have been inspired by Alexander the Great and what lessons have they learned from him.
   
   The book does an excellent job presenting Alexander and identifying his "secrets". It shows how Alexander's timeless strategies have been--and can be--applied to gain a competitive advantage. The author carefully explains the skills and principles valuable to leaders, managers, and strategists.
   
   A must read for leaders and for those who aspire to become leaders.

5 comments about Rocketman: Astronaut Pete Conrad's Incredible Ride to the Moon and Beyond.

1. I've read way too many space books, so I love the subject matter, but the style of this one was too breezy, lacking in important detail. Each chapter is about 12 words long, so you get the impression this was either rushed through or intended for young adults. I learned little about the man, whom I wholly admire. Did he alienate anybody? Were there any character flaws? Also, I was looking to learn more of an insider's view of Gemini and Apollo, but it was all very superficial, heard-it-before material. I'd read a bit about Conrad, like his attempt to smuggle onto the moon a huge cowboy hat to fit over his space helmet, or his attempt at trick photography on the lunar surface, hoping to befuddle the photo analysts later. Neither of these gems were in the book. He's a great guy, a pilot's pilot, a problem-solving magician with a live-for-the-moment spirit. But the book is really junk food, even for a space nut like myself. Sorry, Pete. They done ya wrong.



2. The book arrived within the scheduled delivery time in excellent condition.
   
   Thank you,
   
   Mark & Francine Keehnel



3. I enjoy reading about this time in American History and consider myself a student of the early space program. In that regard, in a brief perusal of the book, I have already noticed some factual errors that should have been caught by the editor or by Mr. Klausner. First, in the picture section, it shows a picture of Pete on the ladder about to board an F4 Phantom, yet the label says that he is posing in front of a T-38. Another error is related to the issue with "Max Peck". Max Peck was the Mgr of the Rice Hotel in 1962. After the 2nd group of astronauts was chosen, including, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, Ed White and Neil Armstrong they were asked to check in under the Mgr's name to avoid their names reaching the press prior to their formal introduction. However, this book states that this happened back in 1959 when the first 32 candidates for the Mercury program checked into a a non-disclosed hotel in Washington. Not only is that fact wrong, but they didn't check into a hotel in 1959 for that first meeting but the Dolly Madison house in Washington.



4. Pete Conrad had a fairly colorful style about him, part cowboy - part engineer - full time iconoclast. However, these traits do not come thru in this book. The writing does not convey the dynamics of the man, so ultimately it becomes little more than a 'just the facts' biography.
   
   While I doubt any astronaut book came come close to capturing the human story of space Michael Collins' "Carrying The Fire", this book had a chance since it focused upon one of the truly unique characters in the space program. So am immensely dissapointed at the final product.



5. I have read a lot of material on the Mecury, Gemini, and Apollo missions and found this book to be a nice easy read. There were a couple of items that were mis-quoted, but other than that, I enjoyed reading it. I would suggest for readers of this type of material to be sure to read "Failure is not an option" by Gene Krantz, he was the flight director who was envolved with Mecury all the way to Apollo 17. With the knowledge of his book, it helps to understand a lot of what's going on. I did however, seem to notice a lack of writting about Pete Conrad's family. I have done business with Pete Conrad Jr. and he's a great guy. I was suprised to see so little mention of his family in the book. There was just a small part about them in the book. I guess perhaps written by is present wife would explalin it. But I enjoyed reading the book. Long may you rise above the earth Pete Conrad.
   
   KLD

5 comments about Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich.

1. While not as thorough as Anton Joachimstahler's or James P. O'Donnell's works on Hitler's last days, Fest provides a good introduction to the last month of Hitler and Nazi Germany's lives. The book somewhat bounces around between Hitler, the Soviet onslaught, and conditions in Berlin, but Fest does a pretty good job of balancing these and writing a readable book. Again, not the most detailed of accounts, but a good intro.



2. I wish that I had read the negative reviews of this book and avoided it. This is a very poorly done account of Hitler's final days in the bunker. The book is poorly written, lacks linear progression, and provides an erratic treatment of the subject. The text itself is cobbled together in piecemeal fashion from other books on the subject - there seems little original here. Quotes about Hitler are often made without attribution leaving the reader to wonder whose opinion was being posited. Fest writes pages and pages of filler material consisting of his own amateur psychoanalysis of Hitler which adds nothing to the record and further sidetracks this work.
   
   If you wish to read an engaging and informative account of Hitler's final days, skip Fest's book and read instead the book written by Hitler's secretary Traudle Junge's or Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting's book The Women Who Knew Hitler which chronicles Hitler's last days extremely well.



3. Fest's haunting description of the last days of the Third Reich is a magnificent accomplishment. Despite its brevity, Fest manages to weave larger historical issues into a narrative full of surreal, compelling details about the Nazis' end. There are the evocative stories of Berlin in turmoil: SS patrols summarily hanging whoever they felt was a shirker, citizens struggling to survive in the shelled-out ruin of a city, the Soviet encirclement growing ever closer. Meanwhile, inside the Hitler's bunker, the story of delusion and denial grew ever more fantastical -- Hitler commanding generals to counterattack the Russians with army units existing in his imagination, and growing more and more furious with their "betrayals" as the Russian advance still came on.
   
   The story arrives ultimately at the Russian approach to the bunker and the suicides of Hitler, Eva Braun, and the inner circle. Their grimly nihilistic end, burned in a trashheap, paralleled their desire for the same fate for Germany. Hitler wanted Germany to go down with him. That so many in Berlin actually did follow him in suicide, or fighting the Russians to the end against suicidal odds, seems now almost too bewildering to believe. Fest's book is bleak, but in a straightforward journalistic style argues why the end in the bunker was the culmination of Hitler's theatrical, nihilistic vision.



4. James O'Donnell's "Bunker" is the authoritative history of the Fuhrerbunker. Even Mr. Fest acknowledges that in his Bibliography notes. "Inside Hitler's Bunker" is cursory, superficial and unoriginal and it escapes me that there can be any reason this book was written except to make a quick buck off of unwary readers. It's a joke. Avoid it at all costs.



5. Inside Hitler's Bunker is a good introduction to the final days of the Second World War from the Nazi perspective - a horrific denoument to a great crisis in world history as Hitler and his cohorts, realising defeat was inveitable, still pursued a grand Wagnerian ending until the last. Berlin was in ruins, thousands were dying by the day, the Red Army were marauding in from the East. And Hitler, a 'cake gobbling wreck', shattered by events, bloodily ended it all along with his wife.
   
   This is a short, journalistic history, mainly from secondary sources, with a good deal of speculative rumination. It is not a deep scholarly book. It will appeal as an introduction to the topic, interspersed with some interesting pictures of the war ravaged Berlin, and inside the Bunker itself.

3 comments about Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and Nelson's Battle of Trafalgar (P.S.).

1. Seize this book! It is fascinating and so well written. It is not just a description of the battle. The reader learns so much about the history and culture of England, France and Spain and also about the psychology of men who go to battle. Nicolson is an excellent writer!



2. Real human history is not only stranger than fiction. It can also be made to read better than fiction. Writers of real history surround their readers with a sense of how people thought and acted in the era they write about, and how different that can be from modern ways of thinking. Real historians make history exciting. Adam Nicolson is a real historian. "Seize the Fire" is exciting and genuine history.



3. For anyone who loves 'Master and Commander' or 'Hornblower' with their tales of heroism on the high seas, this is a must buy. Unlike other naval history books, this one delves into the psychological makeup of the men who became heroes at Trafalgar. Revealing the strange, heady mixture of millennial, end of the world violence, love, humanity and duty, this book is full of the authentic voices of the time and reads like an adventure. If only all history was this enticing!
   
   Review by Alex Beecroft, author of Captain's Surrender

1 comments about Faces of Discord: The Civil War Era at the National Portrait Gallery.

1. I found this 300 page volume of portraits and information on many Civil War persons englightening because there are pictures of the Famous and not so famous people who I have read and written about. I will treasure this volume for many years

5 comments about A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain.

1. I discovered Lord Dowding as the author did through Dowdings book "Lynchgate". The Battle of Britain, whilst not the saviour as most believe put a serious dent in Hitlers War Machine. Britain was to remain free and a "stepping stone" back into Europe.
   
   Without Lord Dowding none of this would have been achieved. Bombing had been shown to be the way of modern warfare and fighters stuck in a time warp could not catch them. Dowding's obstinacy and prescience established a data-linked system of radar, operation rooms and fighters. Without him the World may have been a much different place.
   
   Since owning and reading the book, I have lent it out to various people, some who admit to only occassionally reading! Everyone has been awe stuck by the story. Our debt of gratitude to those who fought the Second World War is aptly enhanced.



2. A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain by David E. Fisher is the story of more of the more eccentric military geniuses, High Dowding, the Commander of RAF Fighter Command during The Battle of Britain. I mention eccentric because Dowding's bend-of-mind makes folks like Patton and Montgomery seem dead normal.
   
   In fact, if you combined Patton's belief in reincarnation and the afterlife with Montogomery's stubbornness, you get a pretty good idea of how - under normal circumstances - loopy this man was. Fisher describes a man that openly spoke of discussions with dead fighter pilots and who married a woman whose dead husband recommended to Dowding that he do so. The woman, by the way, had had dreams about a man named Hugh - vastly older than she - who had protected her as a child.
   
   So, was Hugh Dowding a nut case?
   
   It doesn't necessarily matter because this man also was responsible for some of the most innovative developments in aerial combat: multi-gunned monoplane fighters, radar and its associated ground-control infra-structure and the twin-engined radar carrying night fighter. Along the way, he also managed to stand up to Winston Churchill and maintain a cadre of the aforementioned fighters in England when the PM was bound and determined to lose them all in an effort to save France.
   
   And in return for these efforts, he was villified in person and behind his back; left in suspense as to his future for months on end, dis-obeyed by several of his immediate suboridinates and, ultimately, force out of service.
   
   The story is one of the most true examples of doing the right thing, despite and in spite of the potential repercussions. An absolutely excellent work. I only wish that Fisher had footnoted the book. By not not doing so, he hoists himself on his own petard of chastising those who mis-quote or fabricate.



3. Well worth buying since this area has not been properly covered to my knowledge. Disagreeably journalistic style.
   With all due respect to Dowding and none to the Air Ministry, someone should extend the book's scope and write a book on all the cock-ups and how they came into being and were tolerated. Examples: Leigh Mallory insubordination, no camouflage paint on planes, why 1932 jet wasn't developed, formation flying, no deflection shooting practice, insufficient swopping of fatigued/fresh pilots between groups, no calling back of semi-trained pilots who were jettisoned before finishing courses, etc, etc. Most of these errors were obvious before fighting started.
   A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain



4. Anyone searching for a decent history of the Battle of Britain, a biography of Lord Dowding, insight into the development of radar OR the role of Winston Churchill in any of these will have to look elsewhere. In this poorly edited atrociously written volume the author manages to take fascinating material and reduce it to a sort of peculiar tabloid scandal sheet. It is painfully unclear what Fisher's intent is in writing this book, at one point it seems like he is trying to ressurect the reputation of an "unsung hero" but at the next he is doing his best to make fun of the very person that he has built up. The style of the book borders on the peculiar -there are no notes or citation, just a somewhat sparse "bibliography" yet we get large sections in quotation marks & whole mental dialogs that occur in the heads of the protagonists, who "chortle" and sneer at each other on every third page -don't get me wrong here, Fisher has written a very "post-modern" book, there really are no heroes, just different levels of fools, knaves and villains, all of whom steal from each other, cut each other out of the credit, thwart each other's ambitions, and generally behave like a nasty set of academics at a faculty meeting from hell. As an example of the egregious errors in this text, for some reason Fisher seems obsessed with tanks -even though he conspicuously ignores Churchill's role in their initial development. Again and again he talks about tanks "winning" the First World War & "breaking the back" of the German armies. This is odd, given that the tank arrives in the First War in September of 1916 -half-way through- and had little if any impact on the situation on the Western Front. Strangely, the role of the Royal Navy's blockade in "breaking the back" of Germany's will to fight seems to have escaped Fisher's notice... Fisher's cultural biases are also very much to the fore: at one point the English pilots spend their time between missions either throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. Their American counterparts in the meantime "chat". Fisher regularly allows his purple prose to wander into this sort of silliness & one is constantly wonderingif things really were as terrible (and silly) as he says how on earth did the Germans not win? In all seriousness, this is a very stupid and above all "little" book that simply isn't worthy of the subject. It is not just that readers will be mislead by Fisher's poor use of the material it is more that they are likely to not bother to pursue the many important themes that ctually emerged in the run-up to the Battle of Britain because they are so turned off by the shallowness of the schloarship exhibited here. One reads this book for the same reason one slows at car wrecks, out of a morbid interest in calamity.



5. This book gave me a new slant on a subject that I thought I knew. I didn't appreciate the Air Marshall until I read what he accomplished in saving England from Hitler.

5 comments about Luftwaffe Fighter Ace.

1. Norbert Hannig's account of his experiences as a Luftwaffe `Jagdflieger' (fighter pilot) on the Eastern Front from 1943-45 provides an interesting insight into the experiences of one of the "mid-war" Luftwaffe pilots. From Hannig's days with the Jungvolk (a youth organization in Germany similar to the Boy Scouts - in contrast to the Hitler Youth) in 1940 to his flight training experiences and subsequent posting to the "Green Hearts" Fighter Wing in Russia, the book is easy to read. The narrative flows and is not at all boring. You get a sense of the man himself and the effects of the daily grind of operations over an ever changing front.
   
   (John Weal, who translated Mr. Hannig's book, is in his own right an expert on the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Check out any of his books in the "Aircraft of the Aces" series, which are published by Osprey Publishing.)
   
   For any reader who is keenly interested in reading about the lives of obscure Second World War aces, this book will make a welcome addition to your library. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.



2. This is a great book!!! I couldn't put it down once I picked it up. Mr. Hanning tells his story with great interest and zeale. I recommend this book to all aviation biography lovers, you will not be dissapointed!



3. Pretty good. He did not talk about all of his air kills but went through his life too quickly. Book was too short.



4. After reading this book I was left with an impression of the author as someone I would enjoy meeting. His story left me with a feeling that I got to know this guy and that he left me in a state of re-analysing my pre concieved ideas about the men and women who fought for Germany. The author was no different that our fathers and grandfathers who fought for the allies.
   This book is an eye opener to everyday life in wartime Germany.



5. I have studied the Luftwaffe and WWII for more than forty years. I enjoyed this work thoroughly and highly recommend it. I do not disagree that I would have enjoyed more details of the author's 50+ kills, but his humor and his experiences on both the Eastern and Western fronts were very interesting. Books of this sort are rarely available for long, and this one should not be missed. COL (ret) Tom Pool